Tony Wu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Mark Hindess > <mark.hind...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> In message <3b3f27c60904291750s2ac0530fib707c1c34e964...@mail.gmail.com>, >> Nathan Beyer writes: >>> I've been thinking about how we consume Xerces and Xalan, especially >>> since we've had to do some of the more recent modifications to the >>> build scripts to manipulate the JARs and archives in various ways. As >>> an alternative to grabbing the binary packages, we could grab the >>> source code itself and do our own builds. We could do this by grabbing >>> the officially distributed source archives or we could checkout the >>> code directly via svn:externals pointing to release tags (some risk in >>> that). >> I'd rather not use svn:externals. > > I dont like svn:externals either. Probably it's not necessary to keep > them up to date. How about vote for whether to update when discussing > the next milestone build. I incline to grab the src code so that we > won't heavily depends on the script.
+1 to not using svn:externals. It plays havoc with our version control! >>> One advantage this has is that the code would be compiled at the >>> bytecode level of our code (Xerces currently builds to support Java >>> 1.3). The other would be a more natural fit into the classlib module >>> structure, which would allow us to build and package manifests as well >>> as additional tests. >> I've been thinking about creating modules/xml (and modules/orb) so that >> these dependencies are handled in a way that is more consistent with >> our modular structure. It would allow us to do things like >> -Dexclude.module=orb and not have to download the yoko dependency (which >> would be sensible for Harmony Select). >> > yes, I think it is the consistent with Nathan's "more natural fit into > the classlib module structure" yep >>> Just something I've been knocking around in my head. Any comments or >>> additional thoughts? >> We don't really do very much to the jar. (Now that we are doing it only >> once per download rather than once per build) I don't think it is a big >> deal. However, I like the idea of actually running xerces and xalan >> tests on Harmony and perhaps the best way to do that is to grab source - >> unless the tests are in a jar? > > good point. we'd better run these tests on Harmony. All good points. The only minor concern I have is that is we start to modify the dependencies (too much) we'll get into a world of hurt when trying to upgrade to the latest versions. Rather than locally customize a particular distribution there should be a point where we work closer with the dependency project to produce something more closely aligned to our use case. Regards, Tim
